Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.

Aussie1 wrote:

 

Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?  

---

I only watched the first 2 minutes or so but to be fair, he didn't exactly  prove that what he was saying was correct by actual verifiable facts.  In the first minute he pulled some numbers about max efficiency out of thin air without saying where they come from or even citing a source and then used those numbers to debunk the whole theory of solar and wind producing enough electricity to support life on earth.  Its like a politician pulling budget numbers out of their arse and using them to cost justify their favourite project.  

But don't get me wrong, I've been saying for some time now that with current technologies solar and wind generators arn't the permanent solution to our energy crisis.   Either we have to develop better more efficient energy collection systems and/or we need to seriously reduce our energy requirements.  Problem is, I havn't heard of any startling developments in solar collector technology and with the unrelenting push to get people into electric cars I can't see the 2nd part of that equation happening in the near future (if at all)

Which leave us with a problem for which we currently only have a short term bandaid solution 

Simon

Aussie1 wrote:

---

TheHeaths wrote:

---

Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.

 

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM

---

 

 

Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?  

---

 The presenter presents claims & statements for the audience he is aiming at, those who WANT to believe what he is saying. Not one solid reference to support his argument. It is he who should be offering proof to show his facts are not just one sided nonsense. He cannot do that

Worse his arguments are flawed because he does not make reference to the costs & pollution & mining & degradation of pristine areas etc from fossil fuel extraction . Add those costs to his claims & he would start to look pretty silly. Just because he 'looks respectable, wears a suit & presents articulately' doesn't make him make sense. This is spin for the fossil fuel industry. 

AND even if there is some truth in his claims, he makes no reference to future management of waste solar, wind turbines etc, & pays no attention to sustainable energy production becoming cheaper the more it is adopted. He bases everything on what we are doing today in this time of transition as though that is how it will always be. His claim that wind generator blades cannot be recycled is just about out of date already. 

AND of course whilst mining to make batteries etc involves some dubious practices, nothing was mentioned about new & yet to be developed battery technologies, instead he carries on as though we are at the pinnacle of sustainable energy storage right now.

AND he pays no attention to the impact of continuing with fossil fuels on the planet, which will have ever greater financial costs as well as ecological & human costs, none of which are factored in to his presentation. 

In short it is slick bullsh*t for the supporters of fossil fuels, climate change denialists & the gullible. Produced for the delectation of those ready to jump up & dpwn saying 'I told you so, without applying anything more than superficial evaluation. 

If anyone here wants to go into bat for for his point of view they need to address all of the gaps I've mentioned & probably a whole lot more before thet can even begin to make a coherent argument to support him. Good luck with that. He couldn't do it, because if it were possible he would have done so. 

To harp on about proving him wrong is pointless & a waste of energy, because anyone who thinks him correct, just by suggesting he is shows that they have not applie d any critical reasoning to the process, & if unable to do that are hardly likely to be able to participate in a coherent debate about what he has said. 

To take him at face value is 'magical thinking'. No one can argue with that successfully. 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 13th of March 2023 07:40:53 PM

Aussie1 wrote:

---

Mmm, still no facts to prove him wrong mainly emotional commentary on how some feel. Cheers

---

 Totally wrong. That is an accusation which carries about as much weight as name calling. If you wish to pursue this, then answer the points I made about the many gaps in his presentation. Show us how I am wrong. Point out my mistakes. Use referenced & undeniable facts yourself. 

If you persist as you are you ignore the points that have been made - presumably because they don't suit you. Instead of hectoring others to do what you say, because you think it will somehow make this presenter chappie correct, engage in proper & respectful debate by putting up the arguments he has failed to address. Without that then further discussion becomes totally pointless. 

Aussie1 wrote:

---

I shall ignore your comments that border on personal. However I simply asked FIRST for someone to prove this guy wrong. No one has. I choose to add nothing further until he is proven wrong. I will add I have not stated wether or not I agree or not with him, I am simply interested in someone with facts to prove him wrong. please try not to answer a question with a question, that is what is expected from a politician :) Cheers Cobber

---

 Personal?  Now there's some mud.  

'I asked FIRST' is a schoolyard argument. 

I expect it reasonable that as adults we might have a grown up debate. 

As I stated above I have not at any stage said I agree or disagree with the gentleman in question. I just read responses that don't clearly prove him wrong. I don't have time to get emotional on such issues. Cheers

Aussie1 wrote:

---

As I stated above I have not at any stage said I agree or disagree with the gentleman in question. I just read responses that don't clearly prove him wrong. I don't have time to get national on such issues. Cheers

---

smwhiskey wrote:

---

Aussie1 wrote:

---

Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included. Cheers Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers. I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.

---

So numbers based on a "theory" developed in 1961 (in this case ShockleyQueisser limit) are "proof" that he's correct?  Nope.  Its a theoritical number that hasn't been proven to hold true 100% of the time.  

There used to be a "theory" that everything in the universe revolved around the earth and anybody who said anything against that specific theory was generally BBQed for heresy.  Then Issac Newton came along with his theory of gravitational attraction to explain the universe and that was deemed to be "correct" till Einstein came along 250 years after him and proved him wrong.  Now people are starting to suspect Einstein may not be entirely correct either.

The point is, don't be so arrogant to assume that this specific point of view is the one and only correct view because realistically the odds are that it probably isn't regardless of whether we provide the "proof" you like or not.   

---

Not actually anything to do with "if I like or not" the proof provided. I am just curious about this issue. I have no issue with those that choose to disagree with the guys take on it. But I will say clearly it's a very emotional subject for some eh.

Along with Einstein, even Nostradamus got some right and some wrong   

Cheers Cobber.

OK, I watched the video and have to agree it is short on references to back up what he says. And pretty obviously he only talks one side of the argument.

In fact very similar to the videos that are pushing the other side. They also choose to omit important detail because they only want you to hear their side of the argument.

So I am with Aussie on this. If you don't like it, fine, but instead of saying how it falls short of what you think should be included, do you think what he said is wrong?

If you only hear one side of an argument you KNOW you are not getting the full story. If you aren't alarmed by what he said, you should be ... unless you think it is all wrong. If so, what? If only half of what he said is true, surely you find that alarming?

Mind you, as I have said before, I don't think we have much alternative as the supply of oil is not endless.

Aussie1 wrote:

---

TheHeaths wrote:

---

Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.

 

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM

---

 

 

Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?  

---

 I have no idea if what the video from this website below is true or false

https://www.prageru.com/video/whats-wrong-with-wind-and-solar

Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines
(My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)

A very quick search on the net comes up with this website below

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-top-15-wind-and-solar-power-countries-in-2020/#:~:text=Ember's%20recent%20Global%20Electricity%20Review,TWh)%20of%20the%20world's%20electricity.

Which says that almost 10% of the worlds power is supplied by solar/wind turbines

Below is a screenshot from this website

As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling

My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman 

TheHeaths wrote:

---

Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.

 

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM

---

 

 

Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?  

---

r

Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines
(My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)

 

As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling

My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman 

---

Very much appreciate your response however, it is difficult to accept a proposition that includes e.g "my gut feeling" re quoted number was wrong or "my gut feeling" the video is a bit of propaganda.

And once again "I will go with my gut feeling" that the quoted number was wrong.

That is hardly providing facts that prove the guy wrong. Even though there is nothing wrong with having a gut feeling, it just lacks facts.

Cheers

Gary and Barb wrote:

---

As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.

---

Sounds like pretentious polemics to me.

Aussie1 wrote:

---

TheHeaths wrote:

---

Unfortunately Paul, when I saw that Tucker Carlson is one of the Prageru presenters, I placed this in the same league as other non balanced information. It is the other side of the misinformation coin.

 -- Edited by TheHeaths on Monday 13th of March 2023 04:25:58 PM

---

 

Hi, Be interested in how this particular information is not balanced. Can you support it with facts that prove this guy wrong?  

---

r

Below is a screenshot where he says that less than 3% of world power is generated by solar/wind turbines
(My gut feeling was that this quoted number was wrong)

 

As it is impossible for me, to go out with my el-cheapo clamp meter, and physically measure the power coming down the lines, from both renewable and hydrocarbon sources, then I will go with my gut feeling

My gut feeling is that, the video was a bit of propaganda, from an oil companies spokesman 

---

 

Very much appreciate your response however, it is difficult to accept a proposition that includes e.g "my gut feeling" re quoted number was wrong or "my gut feeling" the video is a bit of propaganda.

And once again "I will go with my gut feeling" that the quoted number was wrong.

That is hardly providing facts that prove the guy wrong. Even though there is nothing wrong with having a gut feeling, it just lacks facts.

Cheers

 

---

  Just prove Carlson right instead of dodging the issue..... then finish!